Bill Description: House Bill 496 would shift regulatory control of podiatrists from the independent Board of Podiatry to the Idaho State Board of Medicine.
Rating: 0
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
House Bill 496 would repeal and replace Chapter 6, Title 54, Idaho Code, and make other changes to Idaho code to shift regulatory control of podiatrists from the independent Board of Podiatry to the Idaho State Board of Medicine.
(+1)
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
Under current Idaho law, podiatrists are governed and licensed by an independent 5-member board that includes 4 podiatrists. This means 80% of board members are part of the profession.
House Bill 496 eliminates this board and alters the composition of the 11-member State Board of Medicine to require that one of the members be “engaged in the active practice of podiatric medicine in this state.” With this change, podiatrists will be governed by a board where only one of the eleven members (9%) is part of the profession.
While this board consolidation could net a small cost savings, we should acknowledge the unaddressed issue of ongoing conflicts and legal battles between medical associations and podiatrists.
Shifting from independent governance and oversight by an independent board to minority representation on the State Board of Medicine increases the power of the medical association over podiatrists.
(-1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
Under current Idaho code (§54-614), practicing podiatry without a license is a misdemeanor. Under the new chapter, which would be created by House Bill 496, practicing podiatry without a license would be a felony. This reclassification carries significantly higher penalties and would effectively bar an offender from any future employment in the medical field.
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
The bill’s fiscal note estimates that shuttering the Board of Podiatry would save the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses $33,600 annually in operating expenditures. It further says the costs associated with “database updates and rule integration” are expected to be “absorbed within existing resources.”
(+1)
